FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 28, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11060 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo
. 0 4
- 8 0 0 2 2
- CR
- KLR
U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s T O R R E S H O L M E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S out he r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 28, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T o r r e s H o lm e s ( “H o lm e s ” ) a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o r b a n k r o b b e r y , in
v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) a n d ( d ) ; c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it b a n k r o b b e r y , inWe discern no a buse of discretion in the district court’s de nial of Holmes’s two motions 1 for c ontinuance of

h i s tri al
. See United States v. B owe, 221 F .3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir 2000) (re viewingdecision on a motion for continuance for a buse of discretion). Holmes has not satisfied his burd e n to sh owsp e c if ic , s ub sta nti a l pre judic ere su lti ngfrom a

n alle g e d in a de qu ateop po rt un ity to p repa re fo r tria l. I d. at 11 90 n. 5 (n oti ng that wh e n p art y denie d c ontin

ua nc e a lle g e s a

n in a de qu ate opport un it y to p r ep ar e f

o r trial, th e p arty

“ mu s t als o s h o ws p e c if ic , s u b s ta nti a l p r e ju dice” ). Holmes’s counse l was appointed se ven we eks prior to the start of trial. Holmes has not sug g ested, and our o wn re view d oe s n ot re ve a l, wh y that amou

nt o f timewa s in a de qu ateto p repa refo r t his trial. Cf. United States v. Verdera me, 51 F.3d 249, 251 (11th Cir. 1995) (finding abuse of discre tion based on denial of unopposed motion for continuance where defense counsel had 34 days to prepa re for trial, an d g o v e r

nment h a d s p e nt ye ar s inv e s ti g ati n g c a s e , c a s e inv o lv e d tw o ma jo r drug conspirac ies and larg e forfeiture s, and g overnme nt f iled a second bill of pa

rticulars on thefirst day of trial). 2 vi o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 7 1 ; a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m d u r i n g th e c o mmi s s i o n of
a f e l ony , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U
. S
. C
. § 924( c )
. O n a ppe a l , H ol m e s a r gue s tha tt he di stri ctcourter re d b y ( 1) adm i t t i ng evi dence of hi s i nv ol vem en t in an un char ged bank robb er y, pu rs uantt o F ed. R
. E vi d. 40 4(b); and (2) denyi ng h is re qu es tfor a n
e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng on hi s m ot i on fo r a ne w tr i a l
. A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of t he 1

r e c o r d a n d c a r e f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e a f f i r m. W e r e v i e w a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s a d mi s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f

a d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i or b a d a c ts u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) a n d its d e n ia l o f a m o tio n f o r n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e f

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t at es v. R a m i r e z , 426 F
. 3d 1344, 1354 ( 11th C i r . 2005 ) ( a dm i s s i on of 404( b) e vi de nc e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e r ni ga n, 34 1 F. 3d 12 73 , 12 87 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 03 ) ( de ni a l of mot i on f or a new t ri al b as ed o n n ew ly d isco v er ed ev id en ce ). W e lik ew ise r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s3

d en i al o f an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g fo r ab u se o f d i scret i o n . U n i t ed S ta te s v . M assey, 8 9 F .3 d 1 4 3 3 , 1 4 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )
. T h e p art i es are fam i l i ar w i th th e fac ts an d w e su m m ari ze o n l y t h o se
nece ss ary to ou r a nal ys i s. O n Jun e 8, 20 04 , by supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent , H ol m es and h i s brot her, K ee nan H ol m es (“ K ee nan”), w ere ch ar g ed w i th b ank rob bery ( C ount1) , i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § § 2113( a ) a nd ( d) ; c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tba nk robb e r y ( Coun t2) , i n v i ol a t i on of 18 U
. S. C. § 3 71 ; a nd po s s e s s i on of a f i re ar m du ri ng the com m i ss i on of a f el on y ( C ou nt3), i n v i ol at i on of 18 U .S .C
. § 9 24 (c ). T he s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nta l l e ge d tha tthe c ha r ge d o ffe ns e s oc c ur r e d on ora bout D e c e m b e r4 , 2 0 0 3 , a t th e F ir s t C o m m u n ity B a n k o f P a l m B e a c h C o u n ty in B e lle G la d e , F lo r id a . P ri or t o t ri al , the go ve rn m en t f i l ed a not i ce of i t s i nt entt o i nt rodu ce , pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 404( b) , c o- de f e nda ntK e e na n’ s t e s t i m ony
co n cern i n g H o l m es’ s p art i ci p at i o n in an u n ch arg ed ro b b ery o f t h e F i rst C om m un i ty B ank o f P al m B ea ch i n B el l e G l ade, F lo ri da on O ct ob er2, 20 03
. In suppor tof

a dm i t t i ng thi s t e s t i m ony unde rR ul e 404( b) , the gove r nm e nta s s e r t e d t he
ev i d en ce w a s r e l e va ntt o the i ns t a ntc ha r ge s be c a us e ( 1) by pl e a di ng notgui l t y, H ol m e s ha d puthi s i nt e nta ti s s ue; ( 2) t he e vi de nc e t e nde d t o s how m ot i ve , pl a n,4

prepara t i on , op po rtun i ty, and i dent i ty; and ( 3) the un char ged off ense w as
com m i t t ed by t he sa m e i nd i vi du al s a s the i nst antoffe nse. O n the f i r s tda y of

the f i r s ttr i a l , the d i str i c tc our tm a de a pr e l i m i na r y f i ndi ng th a t e v id e n c e a b o u t th e O c to b e rb a n k r o b b e r y w a s a d m is s ib le a s in e x tr ic a b ly i nt e r tw i ne d w i th the i ns t a nto ff e ns e , or , i n the a l t e r na t i ve , a s pr ope rR ul e 404( b)
m at er i al
. T he di stri ctco u rt stated thatthe evi dence w as “ m ostfa i rl y vi ew ed as i nexp l i ca bl y i nt er tw i ned, ” buti tal so foun d t hatthe evi dence w as perm i ss i bl e und er R u le 4 0 4 (b ) b ec au se itw as “relev an t to an issu e o th er th an th e d ef en d an t’ s char ac t er . . . [nam el y] st at e of m i nd and cl ai m and l ac k o f m i st ake. ” T he di stri ct
c our tf ur the rde t e r m i ne d tha tt he unc ha r ge d of fen s e w oul d be e s t a bl i s he d by
s uf f i c i e n t p r o o f f

o r th e j u r y t o d e t e r mi n e th a t H o l me s w a s i n v o l v e d i n t he
u n ch arg ed ro b b ery b ecau se H o l m es’ s b ro th er w o u l d t est i fy t o t h atfact
. F i n al l y, the di stri ct court concl ud ed that , du e t o the prox i m i ty i n t i m e bet w ee n th e o ff en ses
a nd the “ na tur e of

t h e ev i de nc e , ” the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e w a s not
su b st an t i al l y o u tw ei g h ed b y th e p rej u d i ce t o H o l m es. D u ri n g t h e gove r nm e nt ’ s c a s e - i n- c hi e f , K e e na n t e s t i f

i e d tha ton O c t obe r2, 20 03 , he, H ol m es , and G re go ry R i char dson robb ed a bank i n B el l e G l ad e, F l ori da. B ef ore the robb er y, it h ad b een agreed thatK ee nan w ou l d “ keep every bo dy atbay i n t he l ob by” of the bank , R i char dson w ou l d “ go ac ro ss the coun t er , ” a nd H ol m es5

w ou l d b e the dri ver beca use he w as the m ostfam il iar w ith t he B el l e G l ade a re a. O n O c t obe r2, 2003, K e e na n a nd R i c ha r d so n w e nti nt o the ba nk, R i c ha r ds on w e nt
ove rthe c ount e r , a n d the n the y both e xi t e d the ba nk. K e e na n t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd R i c ha r ds on the n r a n dow n the r oa d, s w a m a c r os s a c a na l , a nd go t i n t o a D o dge Int re pi d i n w hi ch H ol m es w as w ai t i ng . T he t hree co-c on spi ra t o rs th en drov e a w ay f r o m th e b a n k
. K een an al so t est i fi ed ab o u tt h e su b seq u en tD ecem b er 4 , 2 0 0 3 ro b b ery,
w h ic h f o r m e d th e b a s is o f

t h e i n s ta n t s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t, o f th e s a m e b a n k in B e l l e G l a d e. O n tha tda t e , K e e na n t e s t i f i e d tha ta f

t e rhe , H ol m e s , a nd R i c ha r ds on approached the bank, they dec i ded t o u se a di ff er entes cape rout e bec ause t here
w ere p eo p l e o n th e p art i cu l ar b l o ck th ey h ad u sed d u ri n g th e O c to b er ro b b ery. K een an and R i c ha r ds on the n w e nti nt o t he ba nk, or de r e d e ve r y one t o ge tdow n, and R i c ha r ds on w e ntove rthe c ount e r . A f t e rl e a vi ng the ba nk, K e e na n a nd R i ch ar d s o n h ead ed i n th e sam e g en eral d i rect i o n as t h ey h ad d u ri n g th e fi rst
r obbe r y . T he y the n s w a m a c r os s the s a m e c a na l a nd e ve ntua l l y s a w H ol m es d r i ve to w ar d th em in h is D o d g e I n trep id . K ee n an an d R ich ar d so n g o t i n to H o lm es ’s vehi cl e. S ho rt l y there af t er , they w er e i nv ol ved i n a car chas e w i th l aw
e nf or c e m e nt , a f

t e rw h i ch t he y w e r e a ppr e he nde d. D ur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on,In th is a pp e a l, H olm e s ra ise s n o is su e s c on c e rn ingthese c on d tria l. 2 6 K ee nan exp l ai ned t hathe w as t es t i fy i ng as a g o v er n m en t w i tness “ i n h op es for a
r e d u c e d s e n te n c e .” H o lm e s te s tif

ie d in h is o w n d e f

e n s e a n d c la im e d th a t h e w a s n o t in v o lv e d in th e D e c e m b e r4 , 2 0 0 3 r o b b e r y . A c c o r d in g to H o lm e s , h e le t K e e n a n b o r r o w h is
c a ro n th a t d a te . H e s u b s e q u e n tl y f o u n d th e c a ro n th e s id e o f th e r o a d in B e lle G l a de
. A s he w a s dr i v i n g t he c a ra r ound B e l l e G l a de , he f ound K e e na n a nd R ic h a r d s o n o n th e s id e o f r o a d
. K e e n a n a n d R ic h a r d s o n g o t in to th e c a rw ith H ol me s a nd , a s H ol me s w a s dr i vi ng , a po l i c e of f i c e r be ga n f

ol l ow i ng the ca r. K ee nan t hen p uthi s f

oo ton the gas pedal and t he ca r cr as h ed in t o a t ruck. H ol m es t e s t i f i e d tha the j um pe d an d ran fro m the c a rbe c a us e he w a s on pr oba t i on a nd th o u g h t th a t K e e n a n h a d in v o lv e d h im in a h ig h s p e e d c h a s e . T he j ur y f

ou nd H ol me s gu i l ty of

c on s pi r a c y t o c ommi ta r me d b a nk r ob be ry ( C ount2) a nd the c our tde c l a r e d a m i s tr i a l a s t o C ount s 1 a nd 3. A f t era s e c ond tr i a l , H ol m e s w a s c onvi c t e d on C ount s 1 a nd 3. H e the n pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. 2 A tsen t en ci n g , H o l m es, w h o w a s r e p resen t ed b y a n ew l y ap p o i n t ed at t o rn ey,
r e q u e s te d a n e w a tto r n e y b e c a u s e h is a p p o in te d a tto r n e y d id n o t s p e c ia liz e in
a p p e a ls . H o lm e s s a id : “ I p r e f e r t o h a v e m e a la w y e rth a t c a n c o m e g o th r o u g h th is
w ith m e . A n d a ls o I h a v e o th e ris s u e s . W h e n I ta lk e d to m y in v e s tig a to rh e s a id7

thatm y c o-defendant , G re go ry R i char dson , he to ld t hem stra i gh tup , ‘ L oo k, that g u y h ad no thi ng t o d o w i th i t . ’ ” T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed H ol m es ’ s r equestfor a
n e w a tto r n e y a n d p o s tp o n e d h is s e n te n c in g . A tthe cont i nu ed se nt enci ng hear i ng , H ol m es re qu es t ed a n ew tr i al or an
e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g b a s e d o n e x c u lp a to r y e v id e n c e th a t h e o b t a i n e d a f te rh is tr ia l. S pe c i f i c a l l y , he s t a t e d: I ha ve be e n tr y i ng t o ad d res s the [ c ] our ta bouta n i s s ue r e f e r r i ng t o a R ul e 33. Itw as so m eth in g t hatw as brou gh tt o m y a t t ent i on af t ert ri al w he n I ha d c a l l e d .
. . m y i nve s t i ga t or. . . . [ M y i nv est i ga t or ] s a i d he w a s s o r r y th i n g s d i d n o tw o r k o u t . H e t o l d me th a t- - w h y d o n ’ tmy a t t or n e y a tth e t i me d o n ’ tc a l l G r e g o r y Ri c h a r d s o n t o t e s t i f y a tmy tri al
. A tw hi ch t i m e I w as l i ke, I don ’ tkn ow , w hatw as he supp osed t o be ca l l ed for? H e t ol d m e that G re go ry R i char dson pretty m u ch gave hi m a s t a t e m e nttha tI ha d no pa r ti n pl a nni ng t he r obbe r y a nd hi m an d m y brot her r ehea rs ed t hei r s t at em entw hi l e i n cust od y t o t ry t o curry fa vo r w i th t h e [g ]o v er n m entt o g eta r educed sent ence . I bee n tr y in g to g e t - - th at ’ s w h en I p u t th e m o t i o n i n t o fi re m y at t o rn ey. . . . If G reg o ry R i ch ard so n m ad e a st at em en t th at th ey co erced th is st at e me nt t o c ur r y f

a vo r w i th the [ g] ov e r nme nt I f e e l I s ho ul d ha ve a n ew tri al o r a h eari n g t o so rto u tth ese i ssu es. T he go vernm entre spon ded t hati thad n otca l l ed R ich ardson as a w i tness beca use, dur i ng de br i e f

i ng, R i c ha r ds on de ni e d be i ng i nvol ve d i n the O ct o b er 2, 2003 ba nk
r o b b e r y . Th e g o v e r n me n t ma i n t a i n e d th a t i t c h o s e t o c a l l K e e n a n , i ns t e a d of R i c ha r ds on, be c a us e K e e na n c oul d t e s t i f y a bo u t H o l m e s ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n bot h t he O c to b e r 2 n d an d D ec em b er 4 th ro b b er ies. T h e g o v er n m en t fu rth er n o ted th at “[a]t no t i m e dur i ng the de br i e f i n g o f G r e gor y R i c ha r ds on di d he s a y [ H ol m e s ] w a s not8

i nv ol ved i n t he bank robb er y. In ot her w ords, [ R ich ar d so n] atno t i m e provi ded excul pat ory i nform at i on abou t[H ol m es ] no tbei ng i nv ol ved i n t he bank robb er y. ” T h e d istrict co u rt d en ied H o lm es ’s re q u es t fo r a h ea rin g an d stated , “ I d o n ’t
s e e a b a s is f

o rth a t h e a r in g . H e w a s a v a ila b le to b o th s id e s a t tr i a l
. I s e e n o th in g in th e fa ct ors of thi s c as e thatw ou l d i nd i ca t e the neces si ty f or a hear i ng w i th res pect t o Ri c h a r d s o n . ” A f

t e rth e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . th e c o u r ts e n t e n c e d H o l me s t o a 360- m onth t e r m of

i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. O n a ppe a l , H ol m e s a r gue s tha tK e e na n ’ s t est i m ony a boutthe O c t obe r2nd b a n k r o b b e r y w a s im p e r m is s ib le R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) e v id e n c e b e c a u s e i t w a s o f f e r e d o n ly to s h o w th a t, d u r in g th e D e c e m b e r4 th b a n k r o b b e r y , H o lm e s a c t e d in c o n f o r m ity
w i th h i s O ct ob er2n d con du ct . H ol m es urges thatthe t es t i m on y a bo utthe ea rl i er ba nk r obbe r y di d nota r i s e outof the s a m e tr an sa c t i on a s the i ns t a ntof f e ns e a nd
w a s not ne c e s s a r y t o c om pl e t e the f a c t s of the i ns t a nt of

f e ns e . H e a l so c ont e nds th e e a r lie rr o b b e r y w a s n o t in e x tr ic a b l y i n t e r tw in e d w ith th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e . W e
a r e unpe r s ua de d. F ed eral R u l e o f E v i d en ce 4 0 4 (b ) p ro v i d es: “ [e] v i d en ce o f o th er cri m es,
w r o n g s , o ra c ts is n o t a d m is s ib le to p r o v e th e c h a r a c te ro f a p e r s o n in o r d e rto show ac t i on i n c o n form i ty there w i th. Itm ay , ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or ot her9

purpos e s , s uc h a s pr oof of m ot i ve , oppor tuni ty , i nt en t , p re pa r a t i on, pl a n, k n o w le d g e , i d e n t i t y , o ra b s e n c e o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t . . . .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 ( b )
. Th u s , Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) p e r mi t s th e a d mi s s i o n o f p r i o r - b a d
- a c t s e v i d e n c e t o s how
m ot i ve , p rep a r a t i on, know l e dge , a nd i nt e nt , a s w e l l a s a n ongoi ng s c he m e orpl a n. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L ehder-Ri vas, 95 5 F
. 2d 15 10 , 15 15 -16 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r os s , 928 F
. 2d 1 030, 1047- 48 ( 11t h C i r . 1991)
. I n r e vi e w i ng 40 4(b) deci si on s, w e app l y a three -part t es tfor a dm i ss i bi l i ty of s uch evi dence: (1) the evi dence m ustbe re l evan t to an issu e ot her than t he defendant ’ s c hara ct er ; ( 2) the r e m us tbe s uf

f i c i e ntpr oof

s o tha ta j ur y c oul d f i nd t ha tthe de f

e nda nt
c o m m itte d th e e x tr in s ic a c t; a n d ( 3 ) th e e v id e n c e m u s t h a v e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e th a t is nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by undue pr e j udi c e . S e e J e r ni ga n, 341 F
. 3 d at 1280.

“ A si m i l ar i ty betw ee n th e o ther a ctand a charged offe nse w i l l m ake the ot her offe nse hi gh l y probat i ve w it h re gard t o a defendant ’ s i nt enti n t he charged
o f f e n s e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R a m ir e z , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )
. H e r e , K e e na n’ s t e s t i m ony a bout t h e pr i orba nk r obbe r y pl a i nl y w a s r e l e va nt t o t h e i ssue of

H ol m e s ’ s s t a t e of

m i nd w i th r e s pe c tt o the c ha r ge d of f e ns e s . “ O ne of the e l e m e nt s of

c ons pi r a c y tha tthe pr os e c ut i o n m us te s t a bl i s h be y ond a
re as on abl e dou bti s a n i nt ent i on t o furt her the pu rposes o f th e conspi ra cy . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C ost a, 94 7 F
. 2d 91 9, 92 5 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). W h en a d ef endantchar gedBe causewe a ffirm the district c ourt’s dec ision to admitthe evidenc e under 404(b), we 3 ne e d n ot, and

do no t r e a c h th e iss ueof

wh e ther t hee vid e nc e wa s “ ine xtri c a bly int e rt wi ne d”wi th 10 w ith c o n s p ir a c y e n te r s a p le a o f n o t g u ilty , a s i n t h i s c a s e , h e m a k e s in te n t a
m a t e r i a l i s s ue i n th e case. S ee i d. ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F
. 3d 1357, 1365 ( 11th C i r . 1995)
. H ol m e s di d not“ a f f i r m a t i ve l y t a ke t he i s s ue o f i n t en t outof
c ont e nt i on by st i p u l a t i ng tha t[ he ] pos s e s s e d t he r e qui s i t e i nt e nt , ” C os t a , 947 F
. 2d at92 5. Indeed, hi s ver y theory o f d ef en se w as t hathe w as i n t he w rong pl ac e a t the w r ong t i m e a nd l a ck ed t h e re qui s i t e i nt e nt . M or e ove r , the gove r nm e nt pr e s e nt e d s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e , i n the f or m of K e e na n’ s t e s t i m ony , f r om w hi c h a j ury c ou l d fi nd thatH ol m es com m i t t ed t he pri or bank robb er y. F i n ally, w e are
s a t i s f i e d the d i st ri ctc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde t e r m i ne d t he t e s t i m o n y a b o u tth e Oc t o b e r2 n d r o b b e r y , wh i c h n o t a b l y , o c c u r r e d a tt h e s a me ba nk, i nvol ve d the s a m e pa r t i c i pa nt s , a n d e nt a i l e d a s tr i ki ngl y s i m i l a rm ode of
e s c a p e , w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly p r o b a tiv e a n d w a s n o t o u tw e ig h e d b y its p r e ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t. S e e J e r n i g a n , 3 4 1 F
. 3 d a t1 2 8 0
. Gi v e n t h e s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i ty b e twe e n t h e t wo
r obbe r i e s a nd the c l os e ne s s i n t i m e , w he n c oupl e d w i th H o l m es’ s de f e ns e t ha the di d n otpart i ci pat e i n t he charged offe n se , the evi dence of the un char ged rob bery
w a s p r o b a t iv e o f

H o lm e s ’s g u ilt a n d w a s n o t o u tw e ig h e d b y its p r e ju d ic e to H o lm es . In sh o rt, w e c an fin d n o ab u se o f d iscr etio n in th e d is tr ict co u rt’s ad m i ssi o n o f t h e d i sp u t ed t est i m o n y. 3the instant offe nse.

Fe deral Rule of Criminal Procedure33 provides that a de fenda nt may file a motion for a 4 new trial on th e b as i s o f newly discovere d evidenc e within threeyear s after the verdict or finding of guilty , and “[u]pon the defenda nt’s motion, the court may vacate any

judgme nt and grant a

new tria l if theint e re st of jus tic e so re qu ir e s. ” F e d. R. Cri m. P. 3 3( a), (b )( 1) . B e c a us e Ho lme s f

ile d h is Rule 33 motion within three year s afte r the verdic t, the re is no jurisdictional imped i m en tt o our revie w of this issue, as urge d by the g overnme nt. The Supreme Court recently held that “Rule 33 motion s are. . . n ot j urisdic tio nal”and that whe retheg ov e rnme nt f a ils to a rguethe m ot io n is untimely in the district c ourt, it f

orfe its the defense on appeal. See Eber hart v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. C t. 403, 406-07, 163 L . Ed. 2d 14 (2005). 11 W e l i kew i se are u n co nv i nced by H ol m es ’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourt
e r r e d by de ny i ng h i s m ot i on f ora n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng c onc e r ni ng hi s c l a i m of
ne w l y di s c ove r e d e xc ul pa t or y e vi de nc e . T o obt a i n a ne w tr i a l on the ba s i s of 4

n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e , a d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t: ( 1 ) t h e e vi de nc e w a s di s c ove r e d a f t e rtr i a l , ( 2) the f

a i l ur e of the de f e nda ntt o di s c ove rthe e vi de nc e w a s notd u e t o a l ac k of due di l i ge nc e , ( 3) the e vi de nc e i s notm e r e l y c um ul a t i ve ori m pe a c hi ng, ( 4) the e vi de nc e i s m a t eri al t o i s s ue s be f or e t he c our t , a nd ( 5) t he e vi de nc e i s s uc h tha t a ne w tr i a l w oul d pr oba bl y pr oduc e a di f f e r e nt r e s u lt. Je rn ig an , 3 41 F
. 3d at12 87
. “ F ai l ure t o m ee tany one of t hese el em ent s w i l l defe at
a m ot i on for a new tri al
. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S t ar re t t , 55 F .3 d 1 5 2 5 , 1 55 4 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 )
. H o l m es h as n o tm eth i s b u rd en h ere. H e h as n o td em o n s tr a te d th ath e fi rst di s c ov ered the a l l e ge d ne w e vi de nc e a f t e rhi s tr i a l , a s r e qui r e d by the f i r s tpr ong of the t es t . Indeed , a cc o rd in g t o h i s a rgum enti n t he di stri ctcourti n sup po rtof a new12

tr ia l, H o lm e s ’s tr ia l in v e s tig a to rb e c a m e a w a r e o f R ic h a r d s o n ’s s ta te m e n t p r io rto or du ri ng H ol m es ’ s tri al
. M oreover, as t he di stri ctcourt fou nd , R i char dson w as
a va i l a bl e a s a w i tness fo r H ol m e s ’ s tr i a l , butH ol m e s f a i l e d t o c a l l hi m . A s s uc h, H ol m e s can notm e e tthe s e c ond pr ong of t he t e s tf

ora ne w tr i a l be c a us e i ti s not
c le a rth a t H o lm e s ’s a lle g e d la c k o f k n o w le d g e a b o u t R ic h a r d s o n ’s s ta te m e n t d id
n o tr e s u l tf

r o m h i s o wn l a c k o f

d u e d i l i g e n c e . S e e i d
. Ag a i n , o n t h i s r e c o r d , we
c a n f i nd no a bus e of

di s c r e t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of H ol m e s ’ s m ot i on f

or
a n e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g a n d n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n R ic h a r d s o n ’s s ta te m e n t. AF F I RME D.